The USPA should stay focused on working with the FAA and basic instruction, not advanced instruction or things like the "USPA Demo Team".

3. Term limits for the BOD.

Yes, we have a problem with USPA members not wanting to be on the BOD. Who can really blame them when no member feels the BOD really represents them? Plus we have heavy hitters on the BOD that will never be voted out. Normally these people are DZO's and they just get their jumpers to vote for them.

4. Salary information for employees of the USPA should be posted. We should know what WE are paying and for what. It should be easy to find.

When we had Bagley, we could not even get a straight answer at what his job actually was.

4. Salary information for employees of the USPA should be posted. We should know what WE are paying and for what. It should be easy to find.

In reply to:

Might also be nice to know resumes...both professionally and in Skydiving.

Here in the 21st century every company that's reasonably productive has long since done away with the good ole boy bullshit.

Would be kinda interesting to see just who WE are paying what and why...qualifications wise.

Some 'Buddies, Girlfriends & Friends of Friends' might need to up their game if the membership cash cow was privy to pay scales & prior experience...

Never HAVE heard a good reason that stuff isn't disclosed...it's a non-profit that is membership funded. Shouldn't the MEMBERS know at least some relevant qualification history...degree in business, Law, Accounting, Public Relations.

If ya hold those types of positions, what's up with not boasting your qualified...?

Inquiring minds wanna know...Name ~ job title ~ pertinent qualifications ~ salary 'range' ~ number of years in current position ~ total # of jumps ~ number in last 12 months ~ licenses & awards.

Why? Because of he took the steps to listen to some members ideas on the WS and then present them to the bod & members?

I don't know if Rich will vote for the WS or not. I don't really care one way or the other, at this time on that issue. But I do know how much time and travel he put into this ws thing. And as a member what more can you ask for in a ND, hell most would never take the time to go on their time & dime to go hear out a guy and see the program in operation.

I don't see anyone else stepping up to bat..... that is his job as a ND to hear out and work on behalf of ALL members, even the ones you don't agree with.

What I'm saying is, he will listen to you too, he will listen to ALL members! You got something better to bring to the table, bring it on and I'm sure you will be heard and given the same amount of time & respect as shown to the WS proposal.

Ok so he is for it..... I also know he is for the members, all the members and will listen to all, that is why is it up for a vote, for all to have a say.

I don't let one issue rule how I vote. The bottom line here is we as an industry are facing some major changes in the near future. We can't tell what those changes are going to be yet, right now as we play pissing contests, the FAA is deciding how & what they are going to do, the end results yet to be seen.

We might dodge a bullet and nothing changes, OR the pending proposed changes are published and now that is a game changer for all. It now opens the door for the prying eyes. It's better to be proactive, in regards to WS, complex, longer freefall times, longer distances, possible conflicts with other AC.

We already have a large target on us in the GA world, skydivers are not well liked or wanted around in "their airspace" or on "their airports", all you got to do is read the few public submitted comments on the PLA crap.... That is a common attitude in the rest of aviation.

I'm not defending the WS proposal, I'm still on the fence as to a rating program. But I favor clear and standard practices set by USPA in the bsr's and sims. We need to be mindful of "see & avoid" as well as IMC flight rules.

The outlaw shit is cool & fun, I know, used to take part in the fun. The difference is, back then they had to be standing there to see you and then bust you. We also didn't have this many bodies in the skies and most of all we did go around posting the videos and photos all over the internet for the general public, lawyers, FAA, NTSB, pilots who don't want us around to see and use to prove their point to the those with the powers to fuck us. So many avg Joe/Jane skydivers are totally clueless as to all the pending crap and what it all means, if it don't personally effect them or they don't see an immediate threat to them..... hell most are too lazy to even vote, online now too.

So in my personal experience in dealing with Mr. Winstock on a few matters, he has always been responsive, respectful even if we disagree, informed, will listen, deeply cares for the sport, taken interactive bod to a new level and in a much needed fashion! He is an advocate for all members. If you have a valid idea to bring to the table, he will bring it for you, he will be honest with you in the process.

It's your prerogative to vote as you see fit for those who you think are best to do the job. I would ask you to do one thing before you do.... Think about the big picture and the long term.

For example, in another thread I stated I don't think DZO's should be on the BOD, while over all, yes I think that.... however I'm smart enough to know that a guy like Tom Noonan brings a lot of experience and first hand knowledge to the table in dealing with the FAA & airport sponsors on access cases. That is a big major factor this go around and we need extremely knowledgeable people in this area now serving the interest of the industry. When you look at what he is doing and how he got there, it's clear he is one of the most experienced dzo in access.

People want to try to claim that if we make up some WS rating we can't undo that, sure we can look at the BIC, AIC & jumpmaster.... poof gone.

I am running for National Director this year (a more formal post in this forum addressing all the things I hope to do for the membership will be up later this weekend, but I wanted to try and answer your questions directly as well).

Item #1: Getting rid of the USPA GM program.

I would not support the removing the GM program today. I believe like you, that USPA's mission is that of a membership organization, serving its members and in it's current iteration, there is room to improve.

However, the GM product/badge, does serve a very specific purpose today in terms of airport access. The FAA looks to USPA as the "experts" so to speak in airport access, operational standards, training, and so on. For many municipal airports it is the "USPA GM status" that validates for the airport commissions, the local FAA and the airport insurers, that there is some definable process and reasonable safety expectation in place. To take the GM program away, is to take away an asset for anyone trying to convince a reluctant airport commission that we are not the bunch of cowboys they sometimes try to paint us as. Obviously it is not required by the FAA to be a USPA GM to open a DZ, but for anyone that has tried to open a DZ and experienced any access issues, you probably agree having the USPA GM badge to submit did nothing but improve your chances of gaining access.

I have been in a 4 year airport access case in New Hampshire, and the backing of USPA, and the USPA GM program has been one of the pillars of validation that the local municipalities could look to for structure.

2) I have thought long and hard on this whole WS Rating concept. And I agree that in our current status quo, with all of the complaints (founded and unfounded) of lack of standards in other USPA training programs, ie, AFF, Tandem, etc, that we as an organization would be hard pressed to expect any other outcome (at this time) from a program like this. That said, I would disagree that USPA shouldn't consider offering advanced instruction in this area, as in other areas we are already doing it with licensed skydivers. Training a coach, an AFF instructor or tandem instructor, etc, is taking a licensed skydiver and offering them advanced instruction, so we already do that to a certain extent, so I don't see a WS Rating as too far a deviation of that process already in place. I think if done correctly a WS rating could work, but the "correctly" part is a picture still being painted at this point in my opinion.

The biggest issue I see with the WS rating at the moment is it's structure. In that even if the rating is passed, it does not restrict anyone from (I believe) 500 jumps from just going and getting a WS and jumping it themselves without any formal training at all. So, if we don't require everyone that intends to fly a WS to attend a course held by a USPA WS instructor, then we are going to be hard pressed to achieve the standardization that is being sought.

As of today, I am neither for, nor against the WS rating, but I believe both sides bring valid arguements to table, and if I am elected to the BOD, I will weigh the consideration and needs of both sides against the feasibility of implementing such a process, and vote my conscience accordingly.

And I promise one thing, if I am voting on this issue, I will vote by name to be recorded, as I think all important votes should be done that way, the membership deserves to know who is voting yes or no on these things.

And I am 1000% against a USPA sanctioned Demo Team, and I would not vote for such a program should that vote come up while I am in office.

3 Term limits

I agree in concept, but having had a term as SE regional direct to observe the process, I think in certain scenarios, the longer you are on the BOD, the better it serves the membership. My primary example is Doc Lee. As the Chair of the Finance and Budget committee, he has an immensely complicated burden on his hands, to oversee the financial viability of our organization. I would encourage anyone to look at the financials of the organization from 2008 when the market collapsed and see how healthy Doc Lee kept things during that process. If we lost Doc Lee due to a term limit in 2007, I believe that pretty much anyone that would have stepped in, would have faced a huge challenge (and thus gamble) as they were forced to learn the ropes during such a critical time in our financial history.

As a side, I do believe that eventually Doc Lee will step down, and it's important to have an understudy so to speak with that background to be able to be mentored and allowed to step into that role to ensure financial understanding continuity. I have a business/finance background outside of skydiving and on my term in SE region, I was on his committee, in one part, for that reason I believe, but lost my bid for National Director last tim around by 83 votes. I hope that if I am elected this year, I will be able to step back into that mentor/understudy role over the next 3 years, so that if Doc Lee wants to step down as Chair of F&B, that he can in a manner that allows him a simple exit strategy.

Regarding DZOs and long term seating. I look today, and see two of our most notable and contributing board members, Jay and BJ, who are not DZOs. Yes, of course there are DZOs on there with "known names", but in my 2 years on there, I saw these same DZOs, advocate for the membership. Yes, sometimes there interests and the memberships interests overlapped, but I never really saw too many conflicts. The only conflict that I witnessed recently that gave me heartburn was the vote to remove requiring altimeters from tandem students. That vote was a horrific step in the wrong direction and I would have voted by name against it if I was on the board at the time.

4 - Salary info. Agreed.

Bagley: Whether anyone was Pro Larry or Against Larry, he provided a valuable resource to the membership and the BOD from what I saw. He is a living, breathing encyclopedia of USPA/Skydiving/Competition current and past rules, regs, votes, procedures and issues, and was sought as "council" often when I was on the board. Whether they agreed with what he was saying or not, having him offer his perspective was always valuable in my mind.

However, the GM product/badge, does serve a very specific purpose today in terms of airport access. The FAA looks to USPA as the "experts" so to speak in airport access, operational standards, training, and so on. For many municipal airports it is the "USPA GM status" that validates for the airport commissions, the local FAA and the airport insurers, that there is some definable process and reasonable safety expectation in place.

Ok, then remove the REQUIREMENT that a jumper be a member to be able to jump at a GM DZ.

This is simply making a person join the organization. The organization should be able to gather members by showing the good it has done and not by arm twisting. It would be like the AOPA creating group member airports and not letting pilots land there unless they were a member of the AOPA

I know you were addressing Ron but I would like to comment on some of your statements.

In reply to:

I would disagree that USPA shouldn't consider offering advanced instruction in this area, as in other areas we are already doing it with licensed skydivers. Training a coach, an AFF instructor or tandem instructor, etc, is taking a licensed skydiver and offering them advanced instruction, so we already do that to a certain extent, so I don't see a WS Rating as too far a deviation of that process already in place. I think if done correctly a WS rating could work, but the "correctly" part is a picture still being painted at this point in my opinion.

The difference lies in that a coach, AFF-I, IAD-I, S/L-I, and TI, all teach students. First time jumpers. It makes no sense to me to start an examiner and instructor program where the proposed instructors would be instructing experienced jumpers.

In reply to:

The biggest issue I see with the WS rating at the moment is it's structure. In that even if the rating is passed, it does not restrict anyone from (I believe) 500 jumps from just going and getting a WS and jumping it themselves without any formal training at all. So, if we don't require everyone that intends to fly a WS to attend a course held by a USPA WS instructor, then we are going to be hard pressed to achieve the standardization that is being sought.

I am all for a standardized FFC, and adding to the existing BSR that new wingsuiters must attend the standardized FFC. I am just against the proposed regime of 7 WS I/E and 40 WS-I. Think about this. We let coaches teach the non-method specific portion of the FJC to people that have NEVER jumped before! Now, imagine a USPA coach with say at least 200 WS jumps. That would be a total of at least 400 jumps due to the current WS BSR. I believe a wingsuiter with that experience can and should be allowed to teach the FFC to another experienced jumper. Of course the FFC would include a few coach jumps where the WS coach would ensure the ability to demonstrate the proper exit and other teachings of the FFC. Then a jumper gets his WS "endorsement". This to me seems like it would accomplish the same goals of standardization without all the added bureaucracy, cost, and bullshit of having a few wingsuit Czars ruling the roost unnecessarily.

In reply to:

As of today, I am neither for, nor against the WS rating

That is a shame because it is pretty important for my decision on who exactly to vote for, both for my region and nationally. Can you let me know where you stand before the ballot please?

In reply to:

And I am 1000% against a USPA sanctioned Demo Team, and I would not vote for such a program should that vote come up while I am in office.

In reply to:

Good!

4 - Salary info. Agreed.

In reply to:

Good. Lets take it a step further and try to have true 100% transparency in all aspects. We could start with mandating EVERY vote for EVERY board member BY NAME. People should not be afraid to stand up for their actions.

There are many variables in this WS rating process, and yes, the current I/E program is directed at new jumpers for the most part (the IERC course trains licensed skydivers who want to become examiners to become examiners, so in that sense, USPA has already begun training licensed skydivers to train other licensed skydivers. But for the most part, you are correct in the current mission of the I and I/E programs, to train non licensed skydivers. The "macro" question that needs an answer is whether or not it is time for USPA to shift that paradigm, by beginning to admin the WS ratings processes. Obviously this is a big issue, and there is no one universal answer today. There are those adamantly for it and those adamantly against. Your BOD, whomever, you elect, will vote one way or another, which will please some and disappoint others. At this point, until the ballot question is answered however, I think it's premature to assume a majority interest in one direction or another.

Quote:

In Reply To As of today, I am neither for, nor against the WS rating

That is a shame because it is pretty important for my decision on who exactly to vote for, both for my region and nationally. Can you let me know where you stand before the ballot please?

I'm sorry, I can't offer you a confirmation either way, pro or con before the election. To do so now, only to win a vote, goes against my better judgement. I have a considerable amount questions and research left to do, some of which will require talking with people at USPA at length at PIA, the members of S&T at PIA to get brought up to speed on the entire process, and while I have talked to a lot of WS instructors out there already, there are more I would like to talk to.

If in fact my position (and subsequent vote) on the WS is the deciding factor in your decision to vote for me, or (anyone else), I would caution you to consider that leading USPA is not a one issue job. There are numerous issues and tasks to work on, and when we vote (my self included with my votes), we need to vote for the people best suited to serve our membership as a whole, not just regarding this one issue. The WS issue seems to have overshadowed some of the other issues at hand, and thats both a sign of its importance, but it is also just one issue of many out there that need to be addressed.

And to be honest, I'd be wary of anyone saying today, Yes I am voting for the WS rating, or No, I am not voting for it, before they get elected and have access to the group discussion process that the meetings provide. Why do I think this? Lets say we do a straw poll now that says 70 percent of members want a WS rating. And you are running, and you are against it. If you come out and say your against it, chances are, you lose potentially 70 percent of the vote, and dont get elected. Or, you politic, you pick your position based on what you think the majority of the members want and you state that as your platform, in hopes you will get the majority votes you need.

I won't do that. If you choose to vote for me, you are choosing to vote for me in part because I won't politic this point to get elected. The WS vote, whatever it ends up being will be a big deal, and I, and I would hope and/or any other member that gets elected, will show up at the board meeting with an open mind about this question ready to consider both sides before casting a vote and voting for what is in the best interest in the membership.

Okay, I just finished a long fun day at the DZ, now its time to get some food and enjoy the unseasonally warm weather up here in Boston.

the IERC course trains licensed skydivers who want to become examiners to become examiners, so in that sense, USPA has already begun training licensed skydivers to train other licensed skydivers.

With the base line (the examiners make instructors, which in turn teach noobs) being to trained non-licensed skydivers. I will bite on the not politcing over which way you vote, but what do you think about the proposal I brought up about an experienced wingsuiter (200 WS jumps) being a USPA coach teaching a standardized USPA FFC? You didn't address wether you thought that is a viable alternative or not?

However, the GM product/badge, does serve a very specific purpose today in terms of airport access. The FAA looks to USPA as the "experts" so to speak in airport access, operational standards, training, and so on. For many municipal airports it is the "USPA GM status" that validates for the airport commissions, the local FAA and the airport insurers, that there is some definable process and reasonable safety expectation in place.

Ok, then remove the REQUIREMENT that a jumper be a member to be able to jump at a GM DZ.

Well Krip,

The problem is, his answer is spot on and "he" has nothing to do about that, he is the guy dealing with the fall out of USPA being our national advocate. I used the word "fallout" that sounds like something bad. Might be or might not be, depends on how you look at it.

In today's world if you approach an airport sponsor and ask to use their airport to operate, you can bet your ass they will ask about USPA membership for the DZ and individual members, that is all insurance, or lack of driven. That info comes from groups like the, National Air Transportation Association. This group provides advice or "guidance" to airport sponsors on how to address airport minimum standards http://www.nata.aero/...instdsguidefinal.pdf

You need to note how they write and talk in regards to airport sponsors grant assurances and citizens rights. It reads the same as the FAA & USPA and same as many educational posts on the subject of airport access. Why?

Because the message is the same to airport sponsors, play fair or no cash, sounds good in theory but many miss the message. The USPA worked closely with the National Air Transportation Association to draft that guide for airport sponsors on minimum standards, to be inline with the FAA guidance. Airport sponsors are not required to change their minimum standards to the new industry standards, and many of the "hicks in the sticks" won't and don't, maybe never even heard of the NATA....

The point is my friend, the USPA has made a great deal of progress in making our sport a recognized legitimate aeronautical activity with the FAA and other national bodies/congressional bodies who assist in educational and regulation. These have been great strides forward, then, we continue to have national access issues, with the latest ones, resulting in pending & possible changes as we know it now.

What ever happens with that, the ground work has been done, roads built to industry groups, like the AOPA, EAA, NATA.... to name a few. Those are the other users who have a vested interest in new mandates that could harm our group and would fight in our corner, the same as we back them. And the reason the NATA worked very closely with USPA to draft those new guide lines in 2009 was USPA's proactive work in addressing our rights to access airports.

So ask your self's this questions:

Do you like to skydive on public owned airports that your tax dollars paid for? Do you believe that as an American citizen, you have the same and equal right to access the national airspace, the same as all others?

Or do you think little sleepy and big airports like Deland Fl, should get millions of dollars in congressional tax monies, many times based on the number of take off and landings of the jump planes.... then after getting the "free millions" in funding, start making up all kinds of bullshit and discriminatory & illegal crap to run off skydivers or out right telling skydivers to piss off your not allowed here, you belong some "other place".

If you like it the way we got it now on airports, well then you owe a big thanks to USPA. If you like things the other way, don't join USPA and get your dzo to not renew the GM. Cuz like it or not, that is, how it is!

If you like it the way we got it now on airports, well then you owe a big thanks to USPA. If you like things the other way, don't join USPA and get your dzo to not renew the GM. Cuz like it or not, that is, how it is!

Ah, but the question is if the USPA is a MEMBER organization, or a DZO organization.

Because the way they have it right now, the USPA has a monopoly since to jump at a GM DZ you have to be a member. Nevermind that the GM program really means NOTHING... After all there are no inspections, just a pledge to do certain things with ZERO followup to see if it is done. It is a marketing tool for the DZ (One with benefits on airport access issues, granted), but it is nothing but a stongarm method to make individuals join the USPA.

I understand your point, I don't have the answer you seek. I only offer the point, that many fail to see or even know about, and that is how is now SOP for airports to ask about USPA membership and or demand that as a standard to access the airport, it's very common now.

It was explained to me once upon a time that this was required of the group insurance that apparently covers us when jumping at GM DZ's...never questioned it really. Just placed it in the same folder as waivers. Doesn't matter what the true meaning is. If I want to play in their sandboxes, this is a requirement.

The difference lies in that a coach, AFF-I, IAD-I, S/L-I, and TI, all teach students. First time jumpers. It makes no sense to me to start an examiner and instructor program where the proposed instructors would be instructing experienced jumpers.

In reply to:

But until these jumpers receive training on, and gain experience with wing-suits...aren't they also wing-suit 'students'?

I'm an expierenced jumper but I can't go jump a 300way without becoming a 'student' in that..

But until these jumpers receive training on, and gain experience with wing-suits...aren't they also wing-suit 'students'?

I'm an expierenced jumper but I can't go jump a 300way without becoming a 'student' in that..

We are ALL students. That is unless you know everything. This is just a silly rebuttal to deny the fact that the USPA is unprecidented in training of advanced disciplines. Come on Jim. A 200+ number jumper trying wingsuiting is NOT the same thing as a teaching a whuffo to skydive.

But until these jumpers receive training on, and gain experience with wing-suits...aren't they also wing-suit 'students'?

I'm an experienced jumper but I can't go jump a 300way without becoming a 'student' in that..

We are ALL students. That is unless you know everything. This is just a silly rebuttal to deny the fact that the USPA is unprecedented in training of advanced disciplines. Come on Jim. A 200+ number jumper trying wingsuiting is NOT the same thing as a teaching a whuffo to skydive.

We'll see...unprecedented doesn't mean unwise or unnecessary.

The USPA has done some unprecedented things these last few years.

I did a little informal poll at the DZ last weekend, it's running about 50-50 with bird-men...which means half of the experienced wing suites I spoke with saw a need for standardized training.

About 70-30 'for' among non-wingsuiters I spoke with.

Informal - nonscientific YMMV, but I did get some interesting feedback.

" ...they have plenty of lead time on this one, let's hope they don't drop the ball like they did with canopy progression for 15 years & 200 fatalities or whatever it's up to. "